The tantra itself does not seem to draw a distinction between mind and the natural state. It shows a seamless continuity, not two seperate entities. To "argue" that there is the mind and there is the natural state, cannot really be justified on the basis of the text.

To say that the text merely outlines deluded mind also does not seem to be warranted. The text seems to be outlining the process whereby appearances are generated out of the natural state. By this token it would be like saying that fuel, spark and fire are seperate.

gregkavarnos wrote: The tantra itself does not seem to draw a distinction between mind and the natural state. It shows a seamless continuity, not two seperate entities. To "argue" that there is the mind and there is the natural state, cannot really be justified on the basis of the text.

Not two separate entities per se, but the two possible paths which result due to recognition or non-recognition.

gregkavarnos wrote: To say that the text merely outlines deluded mind also does not seem to be warranted. The text seems to be outlining the process whereby appearances are generated out of the natural state. By this token it would be like saying that fuel, spark and fire are seperate.

I wasn't suggesting that it solely outlines dualistic mind, just noting that what may appear to be merely outlining the natural state is in truth also discussing the process of straying into duality as well (and the subsequent implications), even though that isn't overtly apparent. The natural state issues sound, light and rays however that phenomena is unborn, emptiness free from extremes. It's only when emptiness isn't recognized that appearance is mistaken as objective phenomena and the delusion of origination occurs. The five wisdom lights are adulterated into the five elements. The elements are the lights all along however our ignorance obscures recognition of that.

Rather than the fuel, spark, fire metaphor I think the sun to clouds one frames the relationship between primordial wisdom [ye shes] and mind well; that the sun simply displays its radiance and heat, and when that heat interacts with water vapor, clouds are formed which then obscure the sun. The sun is still shining all along, however by force of its own innate qualities certain causes and conditions arise which veil it. The clouds aren't a part of the sun, but arise adventitiously as an expression of it's dynamism. Likewise dualistic mind and avidyā aren't primordial wisdom, but arise adventitiously as a result of primordial wisdom's dynamism.

Holybla wrote:Respectfully, I say one should not use Dzogchen to prove points.

Aren't you also using dzogchen to prove a point?

What he means is: one should not use Dzogchen to disprove his points, one should not use Dzogchen to point out the flaws in his understanding. That's what Holybla means.

You are addicted to correcting what you have no idea about. You don't know me. Furthermore, what's said on a forum is never a complete understanding. I can say the same things to you, but what good does it do? You guys like to stroke each other that's all that's happening here.

asunthatneversets wrote: But for a) those who are caught in ignorance [avidyā], or b), are fluctuating in their integration [unripened vidyā]; the words are not dzogchen because they're being related to dualistically (they are wisdom essentially, but that's irrelevant because it's recognition or non-recognition which is the deciding factor).

Hmmmmm...

"Oh great bodhisattva, listen! Things are made in a perfect manner. This is so because I am the nature of perfection. I shall show you My own being. Because My own being is non-conceptual and uncreated, I have made [things] as to exist in the realm of Reality (chos dbyings). They do not rest on anything else but the mind of perfect purity. As My own being is immaculate and all-pervasive [the things] do not rest upon anything else but on the self-originated awareness itself in the mansion of awareness, i.e the lurid sky. As I am the central vigor of all things which come into existence, i.e. the five great [elements], the threefold world, the six categories [of sentient beings]: they are nothing else but My form, utterance and spirit. I have established [the things] as My own being. I am revealing to you the Buddhas of the three times and the sentient beings of the threefold world as My own being. Because My actuating essence is unborn, and non-conceptual, it does not exist (mi gnas), but transcends all areas of perception. It even transcends the objects of meditation and does not become apparent in mental absorption. Although My own being is imperceptible, I reveal My actuation to you as the threefold world, [consisting of] the five great [elements], and the six categories [of sentient beings]. From the five [elements] which are the apparent [form of My] own being, i.e. the perfect and pure mind, come the five self-originated and vigorous awarenesses. The five awarenesses bring forth the five sensual objects; after the five desires have come forth the five passions come forth. The five passions bring their individual results which individually appear as the six categories of the sentient beings. I am teaching you the appearance [of the universe] to be like that.

The All-Creating Sovereign, Mind of Perfect Purity, Chapter 6

Let's take a look at what's proposed here as a response. You put this here like it's supposed to stand on its own. No one knows why you chose this quote or what point your are making. It's basically a non statement.

asunthatneversets wrote:Likewise dualistic mind and avidyā aren't primordial wisdom, but arise adventitiously as a result of primordial wisdom's dynamism.

That is like saying an apple tree is not an apple tree because it arose from an apple seed and not an apple tree.

It's like the rope and snake metaphor; dualistic mind and phenomena which appear to be conditioned are like the snake lying in the road, however if the apparent snake is properly scrutinized it's discovered to be merely a rope. Once the rope is apperceived it's understood that the snake was only ever confusion and ignorance, and therefore the snake is unborn, non-arisen etc. The rope never directly manifested the delusion of the snake, the rope was a rope, displaying itself as a rope the whole time. However through our confusion a snake apparently originated. The snake was an error, and likewise the misconceptions of dualistic mind are errors.

If we maintain that dualistic mind is equivalent to primordial wisdom then what is the point of the dharma? It's soteriological value and purpose would be rendered redundant and void. Dualistic mind and ignorance are rtsal at root, however they aren't wisdom display. It's all primordial wisdom all along, but it's recognition or non-recognition of that which is the point of dzogchen. If we recognize primordial wisdom, then that is vidyā [rig pa], which is one's foundation for practice to achieve liberation. If we don't recognize primordial wisdom then that is avidyā [ma rig pa], which is the foundation for delusion and suffering.

CrawfordHollow wrote:Here is a nice excerpt from Dudjom Lingpa's Nang- jang regarding the conduct of a dzogchen yogi:...

Please avoid quoting from restricted texts. I will let this excerpt stand as it can be found in non-restricted teachings as well. However we cannot permit unrestricted quoting from restricted texts.

Kirt

.If you forbid people from quoting from nang-jang you should also forbid people quoting from the 7 treasuries(specifically the Nalug Rinpoche'i Dzod or Choying Dzod) and so forth....or anything which is talking about treckchod...

Buddhahood Without Meditation, also known as the Nang-jang is not a restricted text. Anyone can purchase it from Amazon or any other bookstore. Whether this should be restricted is another matter. I did mention the Yeshe Lama which is restricted, but I did not quote from it. I think I did quote from the restricted Circle of the Sun, but the quote was a general teaching about karma and did not reveal any secret teachings. Sorry if this was not appropriate. My only point in this whole thread was to emphasize that even the highest dzogchen teachings still talk about observing cause and effect. There were no secrets revealed or animals harmed in the process. I try to observe samaya as best I can, but still I am starting to see how discussing these things on forums does no good for my practice.

If the moderators could remove the post with the passage from Cirlce of the Sun, I would appreciate it. It is on page one. Everything else that I posted came from public works.

CrawfordHollow wrote:Buddhahood Without Meditation, also known as the Nang-jang is not a restricted text.

Yes it is and it says so in the preface or introduction. And the lama from whom I took teaching on it, Khenchen Tsewang (Palyul) said so as well. That it can be purchased from Amazon or bookstores is immaterial.

...but the quote was a general teaching about karma and did not reveal any secret teachings.

This is why I let it stand. More to the point, the specific teaching on karma can be found in unrestricted texts.

Remember that *any* teaching on Dzogchen used to be quite secret so quoting even something general from a visionary account is verboten. I have made an exception in this case. This is still being discussed by the moderators and a future, more restrictive, decision may be made.

As we can see in Dzogchen and tantric discussions, misunderstandings are easy to make and humans excel at creating misunderstanding. Dzogchen and tantra in general should not be discussed in public. If we really followed that and became a common Mahayana board then I think a great deal would be lost. We are living at a time in history where some teachings have become more open even as they remain secret. Part of the reason for this is because this is the medicine that is currently needed. Buddhism begins with ethics. However in the West Buddhism begins with meditation and ends with ethics. In the East, Buddhism begins with faith (or religious observation) and ends with ethics. We should begin with ethics but it can take people a while to come to that conclusion. However Shakyamuni was crystal clear that his teaching was primarily based on karma. This point has been obscured somewhat even though multiple masters across Buddhist traditions have made the same point. These days we are all in danger of becoming fox spirits (from a Zen story).

I try to observe samaya as best I can, but still I am starting to see how discussing these things on forums does no good for my practice.

It depends of course. We do our best but Buddhist discussion is always a balancing act no matter what the tradition.

CrawfordHollow wrote:Buddhahood Without Meditation, also known as the Nang-jang is not a restricted text.

Yes it is and it says so in the preface or introduction. And the lama from whom I took teaching on it, Khenchen Tsewang (Palyul) said so as well. That it can be purchased from Amazon or bookstores is immaterial.

...but the quote was a general teaching about karma and did not reveal any secret teachings.

When the first hard back came out, Gyatrul Rinopche mentioned to some of us, that you could put this book on your shrine but not to open the book and just read from it without the "lung" etc...that it was a restricted text, it was treated as enlightened mind on the shrine. Khenchen Tsewang Rinpoche offers the lung for the entire text for example, so those that have this lung may read this text.

It's all blah blah blah if you don't know how to relate it to wisdom. Who ever heard of bringing Buddha into a discussion of cause and effect? Buddha never once spoke of causes like billiard balls bouncing together. Actually, Hume did write quite a lot about causality and demonstrated there's no such thing. So the Buddha's main teaching wasn't cause and effect. It was the mechanics of a human action, which is internal to one's mind like urges, feelings, ideas, etc. These are all demonstrated to be nonexistence. To understand dharma it is easier to leave aside scientific questions of causality and look directly at the mind's illusion-manufacturing plant. It is itself beyond cause and effect in the sense that nothing is making these illusions appear. They just do so according to karmic attitudes. It's a nonexistent amorphous attitude that makes them, not a bit of undigested sausage or external factors. Before one has the target in sight, emptiness, discussing all the finer points of archery is a lot of blah blah blah, and it might seem like you are talking about a science or something, but actually all these talks are for nothing, and they are not about anything at all.

I think I'm just beginning to have a glimmer of what you are saying here and maybe I don't agree and/or understand some of it.

I think i have never really believed (or perhaps just understood?) that "nothing is making these illusions appear". And I think i do believe in cause or causation. That all these illusions appear as a result of a cause. So thats the first thing.

However, you said elsewhere in this thread that dzogchen is not concerned with your samsaric situation, that is goes from mind to the nature of mind directly which I do understand. In effect, transmission bypasses the mind entirely, not involving itself in thinking or judging.

I want to go back and read some of the posts here again. I appreciate what has been put here.